posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And even in the rubble of the WTC, you could STILL SEE LARGE PIECES OF CONCRETE.
Yeah, in the foundations/basement floors. If you have any pics of large pieces of floor slabs, post them here. I've seen hundreds, if not thousands,
of Ground Zero images. So good luck finding what I've yet to see.
As far as the Greening papers you posted links to, those are flawed. Surely you don't think that anything anyone says just to agree with the official
line is automatically correct in whatever they suggest, just because
they agree with the official line. Right?
Greening assumes all of the mass dropped straight down, and he re-used each floor's mass and momentum to crush each floor, when in reality the moving
block of floors would have transferred its momentum ONCE, and ONLY ONCE, and then mass began falling over the sides immediately, with most of the
building landing outside of the footprints.
More info here
(addresses Greening re-using energy that's already been spent) and
(addresses Greening's assumption that all mass fell straight down).
Greening also assumed that all of the weight of the upper block fell straight down onto the trusses, rather than the loads being transferred into the
buildings' columns, which would make a hell of a lot more sense. Just in general, the guy's stuff is not accurate. He may be an experienced chemist,
I wouldn't know, but we should both realize enough about the collapses to realize that this guy's expertise is not here, in making mathematical
models of the collapses.